Chicago Big-Box Battle Not Over Yet

From the Chicago Tribune:

Their talk was full of the heartbreak of coming so close, and then losing.

Yet among the Chicago union officials and others who had cobbled together a coalition to push for a big-box minimum wage ordinance, there was little mention Wednesday of giving up.

“This issue is not going away,” said Dennis Gannon, head of the more than 400,000-member Chicago Federation of Labor. “We are going to address it somehow. If it is in the City Council, fine. If it is in Springfield, fine. This battle isn’t over because the mayor decided to veto something.”

The group’s failure to hold onto the 34 votes needed to override the mayor’s veto was not a surprise. By Wednesday morning, Gannon knew that Mayor Richard Daley had regained the upper hand.

The goal now, Gannon said, would be to re-introduce a similar proposal soon after a new city council is elected in February. The failed proposal would require retail stores with at least 90,000 square feet run by companies with $1 billion or more in annual sales to pay $10 an hour and $3 an hour in fringe benefits by 2010.Indeed, Gannon and others were eager to list the gains their side scored in a battle that drew national attention, led to a show of independence by council members, and the mayor’s first veto in 17 years in office.

“It is hard to see a victory this way, but the fact that the mayor had to veto this shows that this is an emperor who has less and less clothes on,” explained Wade Rathke, chief organizer for Acorn, a community activist group that has taken on Wal-Mart in Chicago and nationally.

Rathke saw another reason for the significance of the showdown that evolved in Chicago over the past few months between Wal-Mart and groups like his.

“It is the biggest direct fight with the company that any of us has been involved,” he said.

While some claim that Wal-Mart is up against some form of opposition in more than 200 communities, Al Norman, who has charted Wal-Mart’s problems for more than a decade for a group called Sprawl-Busters, said the number is closer to 40.

Most of these battles are taking place in small communities, and, he added, unlike Chicago, the most common complaints are not about wages or benefits but zoning and other problems that come with the arrival of a large Wal-Mart.

One group that has taken on the giant retailer across the country is Wake Up Wal-Mart, a small Washington-based organization that was launched last year by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. The union shifted to a public relations campaign after a long and costly organizing attempt failed among Wal-Mart workers.

During the summer, the group staged national bus tours touting its grass-roots support. “We’ve always been focused on building a national movement,” said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman for the organization. And he said he was confident that the effort would not come to a halt in Chicago.

Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, was similarly optimistic that the effort in Chicago would continue. “Mayor Daley’s veto is a political setback, not a legal setback,” said Wexler, whose Washington-based group was set up by the Service Employees International Union.

Wexler ticked off a number of states where there are hopes of putting living wage ordinances on the ballot, and predicted that such efforts would keep Wal-Mart in the public’s attention.

“Wal-Mart has chosen to fight these living wage ordinances, so they have chosen to make themselves a target,” he said.

In Chicago, Elce Redmond, an organizer for the South Austin Coalition Community Council, and an outspoken supporter of the minimum wage ordinance, spoke of his letdown Wednesday after the City Council vote.

“It is just heartbreaking,” he said. “Some people say any job is better than no job. But slavery was full employment.”

Redmond did not accept Daley justification for the need to kill the proposal in order to bring jobs to a community like the one where he works.

“[Daley] doesn’t understand that the whole city has gone condo, that energy costs are going up, and yet wages are decreasing,” Redmond said. “He is saying, `As long you got a job, be happy.’ “

Nor did U.S. Congressman Danny Davis (D-Chicago) accept the argument that Chicago would lose potential jobs at big-box stores like Wal-Mart if the City Council imposes a higher minimum wage for its workers.

“I don’t think Wal-Mart is going to run away from these big central city markets,” he said. “People who work should get a livable wage at the end of the week so you have enough to pay your rent and send your kids to school.”

The issue may “die for the moment,” he said, but “it will not go away. The labor unions are not going away. The desire of workers to earn a livable wage is not going to go away. And so the two teams who played today will play tomorrow.”

Posted by Laura Jack on Thursday, September 14, 2006

COMMENTS

The gut-wrenching issue here is, and always has been, whether preference should be given to the poor who shop at WalMart or to the employees who work there.  This is a difficult issue not easily resolved as some seem to think. 

If living wage ordinances are passed in enough communities, WalMart, like any other retailer, will simply raise prices and cast the burden on the consumers and suppliers.  There isn’t any other alternative except to go broke. 

On the other hand, many who work at WalMart can’t seem to get jobs anywhere else otherwise they would work elsewhere for higher wages.  They can’t afford to be altruistic about shoppers.

I have observed that people, and not all of them poor, will drive what I consider long distances (50 to 60 miles) to shop at WalMarts and Targets. I’m not sure local pay ordinances will have that much effect after all.

John D. Sens in Eden Prairie, MN
Thursday, September 14 at 01:10 PM

John,
did you ever consider that most people that work at walmart probably like their jobs and choose to work there. Once again you under the influence of the leftist who think associates at walmart can’t work anywhere else instead of choosing to work there. A poll taken around Jan., shows that 80% of associates at walmart actually enjoy working there. Surprise surprise. This website wouldn’t post those numbers or all the other numbers that show that the majority of people, dem and rep, approve of walmart and do shop there. Also, this website makes you think the benefits are so bad. Me along with majority of associates appreciate the benefits. Yes, I have to pay for my health insurance, unlike a union job where they feel they should get it for free, but thats life.

Once banned from this site in Pa
Thursday, September 14 at 01:43 PM

When this poll was done, did the employee’s (associates) feel safe to answer honestly? Was it confidential and done by an outside party? Was there anyway to identify what store that associate worked at? Was the poll taken at a brand new store when most are possibly happy and have not experienced the real day to day grind?
I doubt that your poll is that reliable.
There is something called trust level.  You can have either a low trust level, or a high trust level, or something in between.
Your information means very little to anyone but you Banned.

Alex in Ontario, Canada
Thursday, September 14 at 03:48 PM

Once banned - Seeing that Wal-Mart’s turn-over rate is at a rediculous level, I’m sure most of these employees polled, have not been there long enough to come to a honest pro or con opinion of the company. I too, used to work for a non-union employer with a 63% turn-over rate. When I personally asked the “new” employees if they like their new job, the response sometimes would be, “yes, it’s okay”. But if that same employee stayed around long enough, their opinion always changed!!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! in Muncie,IN
Thursday, September 14 at 04:55 PM

Glad to hear they’re so determined…

John-

You have a good point about the price increase that would likely accompany higher wages, and this would in turn affect the employees whose pay increase would be diluted by having to pay more themselves.  But that’s another issue.  In this case, the “living wage” supporters are suggesting that it is better for the people of Chicago to be unemployed than work at a big-box store.

Someone in USA
Thursday, September 14 at 07:24 PM

Good point Someone
So I guess that everyone should shut their mouths and count their blessings being ‘underemployed’?

JM in USA
Thursday, September 14 at 07:43 PM

Once banned,

“Yes, I have to pay for my health insurance, unlike a union job where they feel they should get it for free,”

This getting health insurance for FREE, is part of union propaganda, not all union companies give Free health insurance.  People have to remember, that contracts have to be “negotiated” and on the first negotiation sometimes it is a give and take thing, you may get higher wages, but, lose stock options, or may get better, cheaper insurance, but lose 10% employees discount, etc.

As for turnover rate, does anybody ever think about the fact that Wal-Mart has a lot of college students, who leave after they graduate, or retired people who aren’t their for a career, or woman who work for awhile to supplement their husbands earnings, etc., there a lot of reasons other than mistreatment, that would explain the turnover.

Bob in
Thursday, September 14 at 09:31 PM

Once banned—you are correct in what “grass roots” reported, however the “vast” majority of WM employees were “afraid” to tell the truth for they thought they could have been identified and did not want to get “fired”

Bob in—your post is only partially correct.  The majority of the employees leave because of 1) wages, 2)lack of respect for them 3)poor company polices on merchandising and freight 4)ridiculous work scheduling and yes getting fired.

Once again I am “knowledgeable” in this post.  The employees are generally unhappy, but don’t always have a place to go.  It is getting worse for most of WM employees.

knowledgeable in
Thursday, September 14 at 09:56 PM

Knowledgeable is correct about a huge percentage of employees being unhappy and not having a place to go.  Michigan is especially crappy right now.  This applies to people with college degrees as well (some of whom work at Wal-Mart) as to people without them, to people with high school dimplomas and GED’s and to those without them, and even to people that learned a trade and, guess where they’re working?

Generic Wal-Mart Wageslave in Michigan
Friday, September 15 at 05:26 AM

Generic,

“ Michigan is especially crappy right now.”

Could this be because of all of those GM and FORD union workers who have lost or are losing their jobs?  What happened to their JOB SECURITY, promised by the union?

And, if Wal-Mart is the only place left to find a job, isn’t that a sign that at least Wal-Mart is not getting rid of workers, so you will at least be able to live without becoming homeless?

Bob in
Friday, September 15 at 10:40 AM

Well, Bob, blaming that situation on the unions is absurd, it’s a little more complicated than that.  Also, that is why I work at Wal-Mart, because it’s relatively stable, although this isn’t completely true in a lot of ways.  Management knows how crappy the situation is right now so they know that they can get away with a lot.  OUr store manager even said “If you don’t like it, quit and go work somewhere else.” to us as a group.  So much for the “open door policy”, huh?  It means we’ll open the door so you can leave and hire someone else desperate enough for a job in your place.

Generic Wal-Mart Wageslave in Michigan
Friday, September 15 at 10:48 AM

I should have added that I work at Wal-Mart because it’s all that I can get right now and it’s relatively stable.

Generic Wal-Mart Wageslave in Michigan
Friday, September 15 at 10:49 AM

Generic, why is Walmart all you can get right now?  Are there no other jobs in your area?  Where do you live?

-Richard K

Richard K in
Friday, September 15 at 01:22 PM

Richard K,

I say that anyone who can’t find a new job in less than a month or two, isn’t looking.  I’ll bet that the newspaper has at least 2 pages of jobs, almost anywhere in this country!!

Bob in
Friday, September 15 at 05:23 PM

Generic,

“Well, Bob, blaming that situation on the unions is absurd, it’s a little more complicated than that.”

Let me tell you about unions, especially the UAW, which is the main one we are talking about when we mention Michigan.  Years ago, at a company called American Motors, remember them, this is the way contracts were handled, the contract was put on hold until Ford, GM and Chrysler settled their contracts, American Motors would then threaten to go on strike, if they didn’t get MORE than the other companies got.  As American Motors was the smallest automobile producer in the counrty at the time, they either had to give in or face lost sales and profits.  Then, the next time contracts were up for negotiation, Ford, GM and Chrysler workers started based on what American Motors workers were getting, an automatic INCREASE without even trying.  And, guess what, where is American Motors now?  So, don’t say it isn’t the unions fault, because they set the wages that control the cost of living, that make it hard for poorer people to live on, they have distorted what a living wage is.

Bob in
Friday, September 15 at 05:39 PM

Generic,

“settled their contracts, American Motors would then threaten to go on strike,”

Sorry, should have read, “settled their contracts, American Motors WORKERS would then threaten to go on strike,”

Bob in
Friday, September 15 at 05:44 PM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.

Comment Policy

WalmartWatch.com reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to remove or refuse to post blog comments.